John Key’s Duplicity Regarding Chinese Accused

Tue 9th December 2014

People with $10m can buy their way into New Zealand. That policy was always going to involve a proportion of crooks. In his recent visit to New Zealand the Chinese President Xi Jinping asked NZ to send back a number of wealthy Chinese immigrants who he claimed had fled China with the proceeds of corruption. Mr Key responded publicly that because NZ has no extradition treaty with China (because China tortures accused to gain confessions, uses the death penalty and harvests the organs of those killed) we won’t be sending the allegedly corrupt millionaires back. However, there is one case involving allegations of ‘sexually inappropriate behaviour’ and Mr Key said NZ probably will be sending ‘that person’ back. For some reason, sending back a ‘person’ accused of sexually inappropriate behaviour doesn’t require any extradition treaty but sending back crooks and fraudsters does.

Does anyone understand the legal basis for Mr Key’s claim?

If this ‘person’ is sent back to face Chinese justice for what China defines as sexually inappropriate behaviour, would the same apply to, for example, a lesbian wanted by any of the 79 countries that illegalize homosexuality as sexually inappropriate behaviour and demand she is returned for trial and punishment for her crimes?

The main concern for the men’s movement is that our government is treating ‘sexually inappropriate behaviour’ as more deserving of rough Chinese justice than corruption, fraud and/or theft involving millions. Our justice system’s constantly harsher treatment of sexual crime has long been a vanguard in feminists’ war against men, while false or exaggerated sexual allegations have long been a weapon used by individuals to damage men in both criminal and family Courts. Sexual allegations are generally based on poorer evidence than are allegations of massive fraud, often nothing other than one female’s account. Allegations of sexual offending deserve to be investigated, put through due process and if properly proven to be punished and the offenders rehabilitated as much as possible. However, the treatment of sexual crimes, their investigation, Court procedures, a lower standard of proof required and the higher level of punishment have all step-wise become increasingly disproportionate and special when compared to other serious crimes including maiming and homicide. A great deal of irrational belief and misinformation surrounds the issue. This special, harsher treatment of sexual allegations and crimes appears to exist mainly because men commit most such crimes and women demand ever increasing levels of vengeance. It’s time to question the justification for this.

Mr Key’s announcement of special treatment towards a ‘person’ (read ‘man’) accused of ‘sexually inappropriate behaviour’ is almost certainly a form of white knight parading. For any semblance of gender equality in law, it’s time the state treated sexual crimes as it treats other crimes and in proportion to the seriousness of other crimes.

I seem to recall an Australian caught refused to extradite a clergyman who was charged with sexual abuse of schoolchildren in his care, because the Australian caught couldn’t be satisfied that he would receive a fair trial in NZ. I guess it cuts all ways? I am not sure, but I think the extradition later went ahead anyway, but without any apparent improvement in NZ caughts?

I wonder how easy it is to charge an accused corrupt person with sexually inappropriate behaviour, if the sexual charge enables the extradition to go ahead to China? Our american friends used that scenario on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange…….

Our black and white laws seem to be descending into unclarity, purposeful ambiguity and kaos? (The very things that a working courts system would protect against.)

Very interesting thoughts Murray. I remember that too. The Australian court was quite clear that it could not see the man receiving a fair trial in New Zealand.

You might add to that, the case where New Zealand engaged a Canadian judge to review the Bain case and when he returned a decision Judith Collins didn’t like, as Justice Minister, she refused to accept it.

There is an expectation in New Zealand that all courts will return the verdict feminists want, rather than any form of just, reasoned, logical, legal or fair outcome.

Look at what is happening with the State Services Commissioner at the moment.

It’s not a justice system, it’s a gulag system, driven by the screaming witches of feminism.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

voices back from the bush Tue 26th September 2017 at 6:19 pm on Self Immolation at ParliamentAn Article Featuring Sid From 2010 suggests this may have been the time he started having difficulties. It mentions his (...)

DJ Ward Tue 26th September 2017 at 6:02 pm on Self Immolation at ParliamentFlanked by two Ministers for Women. No smiles included. He knows what we know but no comments or mention of (...)

allan baldock Tue 26th September 2017 at 3:34 pm on Self Immolation at ParliamentThe ODT has more details today but under the story they have the usual depression and helpline numbers. Pity they (...)